Quantcast
Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft issue Joint Statement on potential tariffs on China

Forums - Politics Discussion - Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft issue Joint Statement on potential tariffs on China

DonFerrari said:
Hiku said:

Women's surgery is permanent. Not reversible. So that's another false equivalence.

Men can end all unwanted pregnancies by getting a vasectomy, which they can later reverse when they want to have children. That decision is in their hands. Instead they prefer to put the woman at risk, with less safe and less effective methods. If they want to have unprotected sex, they should use the safest and most effective method.

Yes, man need to be so conscious to shoulder the concerns of health and unwanted babies of woman as well while woman don't need to concern about it shoving the responsibility to man. All you say just show that you put man responsibility on this much much much above woman, just missing man being the sole responsible by a thin margin.

I do hope on your life you don't expect others to take responsibility for your actions because they led you to it as if you were completely passive on it.

It's because they're the only ones that can have that procedure. Considering the risks for women with birth control, and pregnancy, it would be the more reasonable alternative.

But things are the way they are. You're right, you can't expect someone else to do it.
Though if someone suggests that all/most responsibility is on a woman, these are the reasons for why I found that particularly strange.

That and I'm white knighting all women.

Mr Puggsly said:

-Snip-

If you're talking about planned pregnancies, then I suppose I can understand the reasoning.
For unprotected sex in general, you could change the sentence to "if men who want unprotected sex got vasectomies". It's safer and more effective than birth control.

Last edited by Hiku - on 03 July 2019

Around the Network
Hiku said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes, man need to be so conscious to shoulder the concerns of health and unwanted babies of woman as well while woman don't need to concern about it shoving the responsibility to man. All you say just show that you put man responsibility on this much much much above woman, just missing man being the sole responsible by a thin margin.

I do hope on your life you don't expect others to take responsibility for your actions because they led you to it as if you were completely passive on it.

It's because they're the only ones that can have that procedure. Considering the risks for women with birth control, and pregnancy, it would be the more reasonable alternative.

But things are the way they are. You're right, you can't expect someone else to do it.
Though if someone suggests that all/most responsibility is on a woman, these are the reasons for why I found that particularly strange.

That and I'm white knighting all women.

Mr Puggsly said:

-Snip-

If you're talking about planned pregnancies, then I suppose I can understand the reasoning.
For unprotected sex in general, you could change the sentence to "if men who want unprotected sex got vasectomies". It's safer and more effective than birth control.

Where do you get the stats from that men are mostly responsable for unprotected sex,do you assume that because you personally think it is logical or do you have a source to go to see the numbers?

Bolded:Do you mean that sarcastically or you think the "knight" part makes it a positive term ?

White knighting women is by definition is a pretty ugly behaviour.

White knighting:

A person with low self esteem who combats this with a unwavering need to aid others who may or may not need it. They usually have very isolated personal lives as they are very judgmental of others, surrounding themselves only with those who feed their desire to help and feel as a savior. Most commonly sighted in young men in regards to women, this is only a lesser form as it is usually only temporary, fading with life experience. More serious cases occur in correlation with chronic self esteem problems where the person needs to maintain a high view of themselves through self rightious acts of kindness. These people enjoy surrounding themselves with troubled individuals, who form a farm which is harvested for what they use as pseudo self esteem.

It might be discussable if it borders to or is sexism.



Immersiveunreality said:
Hiku said:

It's because they're the only ones that can have that procedure. Considering the risks for women with birth control, and pregnancy, it would be the more reasonable alternative.

But things are the way they are. You're right, you can't expect someone else to do it.
Though if someone suggests that all/most responsibility is on a woman, these are the reasons for why I found that particularly strange.

That and I'm white knighting all women.

If you're talking about planned pregnancies, then I suppose I can understand the reasoning.
For unprotected sex in general, you could change the sentence to "if men who want unprotected sex got vasectomies". It's safer and more effective than birth control.

Where do you get the stats from that men are mostly responsable for unprotected sex,do you assume that because you personally think it is logical or do you have a source to go to see the numbers?

It's pregnancies as a result of unprotected sex, and it should all be in my previous posts. But to summarize:
A woman can cause pregnancy ~24 days a year. A man can cause pregnancy 365 days a year.
The ones who primary push for unprotected sex are men, for obvious reasons.
And if they want to have unprotected sex, men can have vasectomies which would eliminate any unwanted pregnancies, and it doesn't come with the risks or list of nasty side effects like women's contraceptives. (Blood clots, heart/health problems, heart attack, stroke, etc.)

White knight was in reference to Rol's post.
I'll leave it to you to decide if it was a joke.

Now give me your Soul Eater.

Last edited by Hiku - on 03 July 2019

Hiku said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Where do you get the stats from that men are mostly responsable for unprotected sex,do you assume that because you personally think it is logical or do you have a source to go to see the numbers?

It's pregnancies as a result of unprotected sex, and it should all be in my previous posts. But to summarize:
A woman can cause pregnancy ~24 days a year. A man can cause pregnancy 365 days a year.
The ones who primary push for unprotected sex are men, for obvious reasons.
And if they want to have unprotected sex, men can have vasectomies which would eliminate any unwanted pregnancies, and it doesn't come with the risks or list of nasty side effects like women's contraceptives. (Blood clots, heart/health problems, heart attack, stroke, etc.)

White knight was in reference to Rol's post.
I'll leave it to you to decide if it was a joke.

Now give me your Soul Eater.

Maybe you are right yes i'm too focussed on in relationship sex and i know shit about the overall stats but i don't see the same logic as you atm because while a man has more chance to cause it allround the year a women KNOWS when there is a high chance to get pregnant so clear communication is very important at those times.

Bolded: K got it,skipped too much reading and took it serious so excuse me. :p

Here you go



the-pi-guy said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Is the offering of benefits, sanctuary cities and discouraging enforcment of throwing illegals not examples of enouragement? Meh... maybe Im just making assumptions...

>benefits

Illegals aren't getting massive benefits.

>sanctuary city

Are set up so that illegal immigrants can call on crime.  For example if an illegal immigrant sees someone getting murdered, they can call the police without worrying about repercussions.  

Mr Puggsly said:

You seem to have the impression I support republicans blindly. I am not registered as one.

And I'm not registered as a Democrat.  

Mr Puggsly said:

Hehe, you really believe tax hikes would only be on the rich? Thats funny, naive and not reflectice of other welfare states.

Middle class would get taxed for the healthcare, but it'd be replacing their existing healthcare costs.  

Mr Puggsly said:

California's growth has gone down significantly. People are escaping or simply not moving there in the significant numbers because its becoming a liberal shithole. I live in Arizona and I meet people who moved from blue states regularly. Its the same reason everytime why they moved, cost of living. So if you have the impression dems only wanna tax the rich...

Cost of living is so high because there literally isn't enough houses for the people in the state.  

It's not purely because taxes are high.

Mr Puggsly said:

That's the thing, dems want to little to no limit on the number of people entering while giving them all free stuff like healthcare. That literally is dealing with the world's problems. The failures of those countries is causing this illegal immigration. Yet those corrupt leaders stay in power and we are expected to pay bills of their people.

>dems want to little to no limit on the number of people 

False.  Just because dems don't think spending billions on a border wall is worth it, doesn't mean they want everyone to come over.  Most illegal immigrants aren't going to be stopped by a wall.  

Mr Puggsly said:

Its a good deal for those countries though. The remittances Mexico gets is a nice boost for their economy and a free welfare system.

Unlike the US, Mexico has a universal healthcare system.

Mr Puggsly said:

Now maybe youre thinking if they all just become citizens they can pay taxes too! But the problem is they would not generate enough tax revenue to support a welfare state unless we are all taxed heavily... like other social states. You also cant tax the rich too much or they just leave, other social states consider that as well.

Yes all those other social states with low unemployment.  

Mr Puggsly said:

Do a little research please, your ideology doesnt work.

Seeing as you:

-don't understand my ideology, shown by such beliefs as: "dems want to little to no limit on the number of people entering"

-are vastly overstating the welfare/illegal immigration problems

I would say you're the one in need of doing some research.  


In the imaginary world where 10's of million of people are illegally coming to the US, and are being given 10's of thousands of dollars just for sitting on their behinds, you are absolutely correct.  

In the real world though, there are only about 11 million illegal immigrants and that number has been consistently falling over the past 10 years.  

And they aren't being given massive amounts of money.


The biggest expense for the US is the elderly with medicare and social security.  

It's not the poor, it's not the illegal immigrants.  It is the elderly by far.  

Mr Puggsly said:

The concept of universal healthcare is nice, its just paying for it thing people won't like. We're gonna need a massive tax hike and that is going to push many millions of people out of private healthcare.

Again, what the democrats are proposing is far more ambitious and generous than what other countries provide. Especially if we have a massive number of people entering legally or otherwise.

I've gotten to a point I actually wish democrats were actually honest about what Europe or Canada actually provide, be honest who is affected by the taxes (spoiler: not just the rich) and of course admit other countries aren't as generous as democrats want to be. I also don't believe the other western countries have the same number of illegals coming in either. I assure you the democrats in the US do not want to just emulate other countries, that isn't ambitious or irresponsible enough.

>what the democrats are proposing is far more ambitious and generous than what other countries provide

How so?

Considering the size of the state there is plenty of space for housing and apartments, just look at countries that have more population in a smaller area.

Hiku said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes, man need to be so conscious to shoulder the concerns of health and unwanted babies of woman as well while woman don't need to concern about it shoving the responsibility to man. All you say just show that you put man responsibility on this much much much above woman, just missing man being the sole responsible by a thin margin.

I do hope on your life you don't expect others to take responsibility for your actions because they led you to it as if you were completely passive on it.

It's because they're the only ones that can have that procedure. Considering the risks for women with birth control, and pregnancy, it would be the more reasonable alternative.

But things are the way they are. You're right, you can't expect someone else to do it.
Though if someone suggests that all/most responsibility is on a woman, these are the reasons for why I found that particularly strange.

That and I'm white knighting all women.

Mr Puggsly said:

-Snip-

If you're talking about planned pregnancies, then I suppose I can understand the reasoning.
For unprotected sex in general, you could change the sentence to "if men who want unprotected sex got vasectomies". It's safer and more effective than birth control.

Yes as long as we accept that both are equally responsible for taking care of their interest and in the case of sex men wanting to use condom and that woman takes pill, while woman takes the pill and insist man use condom. Plus of course if you want to be a bachelor fucking all around certainly vasectomy would be a minimum.

Hiku said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Where do you get the stats from that men are mostly responsable for unprotected sex,do you assume that because you personally think it is logical or do you have a source to go to see the numbers?

It's pregnancies as a result of unprotected sex, and it should all be in my previous posts. But to summarize:
A woman can cause pregnancy ~24 days a year. A man can cause pregnancy 365 days a year.
The ones who primary push for unprotected sex are men, for obvious reasons.
And if they want to have unprotected sex, men can have vasectomies which would eliminate any unwanted pregnancies, and it doesn't come with the risks or list of nasty side effects like women's contraceptives. (Blood clots, heart/health problems, heart attack, stroke, etc.)

White knight was in reference to Rol's post.
I'll leave it to you to decide if it was a joke.

Now give me your Soul Eater.

Errr the man can't make a woman pregnant when she can't make herself, so just because male can make a woman pregnant at any time he have sex that woman would still need to be during fertile days (which isn't just 2 days a month anyway, it is about 3x as much because semen survives inside the womb). And unless you are considering odd cases of a man that have sex each day with a different woman and all of them are in fertile window and accept to do without protection but only after forcefully insistence then that would be a very odd claim from you.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

Errr the man can't make a woman pregnant when she can't make herself, so just because male can make a woman pregnant at any time he have sex that woman would still need to be during fertile days (which isn't just 2 days a month anyway, it is about 3x as much because semen survives inside the womb). And unless you are considering odd cases of a man that have sex each day with a different woman and all of them are in fertile window and accept to do without protection but only after forcefully insistence then that would be a very odd claim from you.

Yeah, it's considering sex with multiple people. I suppose it's to highlight how many pregnancies a single man can cause while 'pressuring women into unprotected sex during unsafe days' as a factor. But a fertile woman needs to be involved in each case, so depending on how you look at them being pressured into it, it doesn't necessarily add anything to the conversation.

Immersiveunreality said:

Last edited by Hiku - on 03 July 2019

Imagine what the cost would be if they built this system in America or japan? real wages? don't blame the tariffs. 



steve

The real shame is that with Tariffs possibly causing companies to relocate and China no longer able to steal patents of electronics, how is Soulja Boy going to make another system for the masses?



DonFerrari said:

Considering the size of the state there is plenty of space for housing and apartments, just look at countries that have more population in a smaller area.

The issue isn't a lack of space.  

Some areas are actively fighting against more houses being built.  



the-pi-guy said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Is the offering of benefits, sanctuary cities and discouraging enforcment of throwing illegals not examples of enouragement? Meh... maybe Im just making assumptions...

>benefits

Illegals aren't getting massive benefits.

>sanctuary city

Are set up so that illegal immigrants can call on crime.  For example if an illegal immigrant sees someone getting murdered, they can call the police without worrying about repercussions.  

Mr Puggsly said:

You seem to have the impression I support republicans blindly. I am not registered as one.

And I'm not registered as a Democrat.  

Mr Puggsly said:

Hehe, you really believe tax hikes would only be on the rich? Thats funny, naive and not reflectice of other welfare states.

Middle class would get taxed for the healthcare, but it'd be replacing their existing healthcare costs.  

Mr Puggsly said:

California's growth has gone down significantly. People are escaping or simply not moving there in the significant numbers because its becoming a liberal shithole. I live in Arizona and I meet people who moved from blue states regularly. Its the same reason everytime why they moved, cost of living. So if you have the impression dems only wanna tax the rich...

Cost of living is so high because there literally isn't enough houses for the people in the state.  

It's not purely because taxes are high.

Mr Puggsly said:

That's the thing, dems want to little to no limit on the number of people entering while giving them all free stuff like healthcare. That literally is dealing with the world's problems. The failures of those countries is causing this illegal immigration. Yet those corrupt leaders stay in power and we are expected to pay bills of their people.

>dems want to little to no limit on the number of people 

False.  Just because dems don't think spending billions on a border wall is worth it, doesn't mean they want everyone to come over.  Most illegal immigrants aren't going to be stopped by a wall.  

Mr Puggsly said:

Its a good deal for those countries though. The remittances Mexico gets is a nice boost for their economy and a free welfare system.

Unlike the US, Mexico has a universal healthcare system.

Mr Puggsly said:

Now maybe youre thinking if they all just become citizens they can pay taxes too! But the problem is they would not generate enough tax revenue to support a welfare state unless we are all taxed heavily... like other social states. You also cant tax the rich too much or they just leave, other social states consider that as well.

Yes all those other social states with low unemployment.  

Mr Puggsly said:

Do a little research please, your ideology doesnt work.

Seeing as you:

-don't understand my ideology, shown by such beliefs as: "dems want to little to no limit on the number of people entering"

-are vastly overstating the welfare/illegal immigration problems

I would say you're the one in need of doing some research.  


In the imaginary world where 10's of million of people are illegally coming to the US, and are being given 10's of thousands of dollars just for sitting on their behinds, you are absolutely correct.  

In the real world though, there are only about 11 million illegal immigrants and that number has been consistently falling over the past 10 years.  

And they aren't being given massive amounts of money.


The biggest expense for the US is the elderly with medicare and social security.  

It's not the poor, it's not the illegal immigrants.  It is the elderly by far.  

Mr Puggsly said:

The concept of universal healthcare is nice, its just paying for it thing people won't like. We're gonna need a massive tax hike and that is going to push many millions of people out of private healthcare.

Again, what the democrats are proposing is far more ambitious and generous than what other countries provide. Especially if we have a massive number of people entering legally or otherwise.

I've gotten to a point I actually wish democrats were actually honest about what Europe or Canada actually provide, be honest who is affected by the taxes (spoiler: not just the rich) and of course admit other countries aren't as generous as democrats want to be. I also don't believe the other western countries have the same number of illegals coming in either. I assure you the democrats in the US do not want to just emulate other countries, that isn't ambitious or irresponsible enough.

>what the democrats are proposing is far more ambitious and generous than what other countries provide

How so?

I suppose it becomes a debate on how many billions of dollars is massive support for illegals.

In practice sanctuary are more like cities illegals simply dwell in and may even get benefits, even if they commit crimes. I dont understand this myth that police kick out every illegal they see. If thats the case then theyre doing a terrible job.

Politically Im where center used to be. Your arguments have always been left of that. Dems right now are in the far left. Republicans have found themselves more to the center, unless its a very conservative state. I dont agree with all republican views but I find myself siding with them more just for being closer to the center.

What if the middle class cant afford the tax hikes along with a private healthcare premium? Dems dont want to admit that will happen with their plans. Democrats want options, high taxes reduce options so the politicians lie.

Its a mix of high taxes and too many regulations that have people fleeing blue states. The thing is you arent acknowleding democratic cities have thrived in the past and are seeing a massive decline in recent years. If they were simply run better they would keep growing. People want to live in big cities and democrats keep chasing people away.

In the grand scheme of our spending on the wall is a drop in the bucket. Many more billions go to dealing with illegals. The wall works but not on its own and frankly has become symbolic. Simply throwing illegals out would actually kill demand for a wall.

I did a quick searxh on Mexico's welfare in general, its pathetic and I dont see universal healthcare.

High taxes arent something the dems can run on. They are trying to convince people it will be paid by the rich. Its a lie and many of the illegals wont be able to pay much tax and provide for themselves entirely. They arent exactly highly educated.

We dont know how many illegals are actually in the country, now count is really done for ideological teasons. Estimates vary from 10 to 20 million. Some estimates believe 100K enter monthly. Another $4 billion just went to providing additional care for illegals coming. The whole thing is a mess, thats reality. What has declined is people coming from Mexico while people from other countries has increased.

Indeed, a lot of resources does go to the elderly and rightfully so. Perhaps we arent collecting enough taxes to simply take care of that, perhaps people retire too early and maybe the government is doing a terrible job negotiating healthcare costs (because they suck with money). Essentially we have a government doing a terrible job balancing our current budget yet want to spend significantly more with new social programs. You're actually helping my argument.

I've argued if our government can't find a way to provide reasonably priced healthcare for 100+ million of whatever number they provide for. What good can we expect from another 150 million they hope to take from private providers?



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)